[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] hierarchical clause model?
Jason - I continue to favor the "Hierarchically Named Blocks" approach, but within that approach I can live with any reasonable naming conventions. Based on your research, it might be prudent to consider an approach that accommodates the differences between US and UK/AU terminology for contract "structures," perhaps something like: Article / Clause or Section / Paragraph. As far as lower levels below "Paragraph" are concerned, I'd favor "Subparagraphs." This is just a preference, however. Rolly Chambers > Summary of Discussion points > ---------------------------- > > 1. There appears to be support in U.S.A. for "Hierarchically Named > Blocks" which start Article, Section, Paragraph. (I believe this > hierarchy was suggested by Rolly in July or August 2000. Rolly's > hierarchy continued with Subparagraphs and Clauses) > > 2. Elsewhere than the U.S.A (I looked at UK and Australia) there is > little support for 'article'. In Australia, we tend to use 'clause' to > refer to the blocks irrespective of their level in the hierarchy, but > will also occasionally use a top level of 'Part'. > > 3. So assuming Article/Section/Paragraph is acceptable to US lawyers, > the question is whether other jurisdictions could live with it as well? > > 4. If we did run with Article/Section/Paragraph, what would we call the > lower levels, and how many lower levels would be necessary? >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]